When politics strike back: the end of the Icelandic constitutional experiment?

A wave of enthusiasm took Icelanders through the 2012 referendum after the 2008 crash, once the widely-praised 'crowd-sourced' constitution appeared to be within reach. But Icelanders’ hopes seem to be evaporating in the haze of this week-end's parliamentary elections.

The
Icelandic constitutional experiment attempted to bring more equality and direct
democracy into Icelandic society. Yet, the parliament has been reluctant to
respond. Now, after almost two years of fruitless debates, the coming national
elections cast a negative shadow over the future of the new constitution.

The Icelandic
constitutional experiment

In
the fall of 2008 the Icelandic financial system collapsed following the bankruptcy
of the major Icelandic banks. After people stood up for themselves in a series of vociferous
demonstrations, the right-wing Prime Minister resigned and a new left-wing
coalition, comprised of the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left-Green
Movement won the national elections. But quickly, general disillusion towards
traditional politics provoked grassroots political initiatives. Among them, a
new draft constitution was written by an elected Constitutional Council of 25
ordinary citizens using the internet to gather input from citizens. In 2011 the
bill was presented before Althingi,
the parliament of Iceland, which started discussions preceding the vote. The
government soon realised that the hostility of the opposition parties could prevent
the bill from being approved. It then called for a national referendum, held in
October 2012, to show that the constitution was backed by the whole nation.

Though the referendum was non-binding,
general belief was that if the outcome was positive, the
parliament would feel under far greater pressure to proceed accordingly.

With a 49 percent turnout,
two thirds of the voters affirmed their wish for the proposal of the Constitutional
Council to be used as the basis of a legislative bill for a new Constitution. But
contrary to initial expectations, the parliament then proceeded to disregard the popular
will and has yet to agree on the draft.

It is not that MPs were
completely blind to what was happening outside the corridors of power - the
issue has actually been debated extensively in parliament… So extensively,
indeed, that they were not able to put it to a vote before the end of the current
parliamentary session and elections, which are due on 27 April. The problem is
that the newly-elected parliament will then have to start from scratch.

Politics strike back

“I’m disappointed, but I’m
not surprised,” says Gudrún Pétursdóttir, chairman of a Committee that helped the
Council draft the constitution proposal. The conservative opposition, made up of
the Independence Party and the Progressive Party, has never looked kindly upon
the work of the constitutional council. However, the ruling coalition of the Social
Democratic Alliance and Left-Green Movement, which formerly backed the work of
the Constitutional Council, have also failed to show unanimous support for the
draft.

“The motivation to pass
the draft constitution was not high enough. The majority was weak and at the mercy of powerful people who were against it,” says Pétursdóttir. “It’s too
revolutionary.”

One of the most disputed clauses
in the constitutional draft is the one stating that Iceland's natural resources
are the “perpetual property of the nation.” It is no surprise that the Independence
Party strongly opposed it, as the fishing industry, a traditional supporter of
the conservative party, would be most damaged by this clause.

The stalled situation,
according to 'The Movement' MP Margrét Tryggvadóttir, happened because the
draft introduces changes on how politicians should behave. “But they clearly
want the old ways,” she says.

But disagreement over individual
provisions is not the only reason for the paralysis. “The powers-to-be are
afraid of the new constitution because they don’t get it, they don’t understand
it,” says Helgi Hrafn Gunnarsson, a Pirate Party (Píratar) member and parliamentary
candidate. “Lawyers dislike the proposed bill because it is nowhere near what
they are used to,” he explains, and therefore do not know how it works. "They
complain that many good ideas in the draft have no jurisdictional history",
Gunnarsson says, underlining the fact that, “the whole idea behind the proposed bill is
to change how the government fundamentally works.”

Reform, frozen

The future of the
constitution now depends on the election results. As many as 15 parties have submitted their lists of candidates. This exceptionally high number seems to
reflect people’s disillusionment with old politics. Tryggvadóttir, who is now a
candidate for the newly formed Dawn (Dögun) party list, explains: “four years
ago everyone was angry and hopeless, but now people feel they can make some
changes.” Only a few parties, however, are expected to reach the five per cent
threshold necessary to earn seats in Althingi.

Perhaps surprisingly, given
the popular wish for political renewal, the long-established Progressive and Independence
Party are currently leading the polls. A survey conducted this week by the
Social Science Research Institute for the newspaper Morgunbladid reveals that respectively 24.4% and 24.8% of voters favour
them. Back in 2008, they were blamed for the financial collapse, but a restyling
of leadership faces has enabled them to come back into play again. These are also
the parties that have objected most to the work of the Constitutional Council. However,
as Tryggvadóttir asserts, “that doesn’t mean that Icelanders don’t want a new
constitution,” but just that “people are struggling with loans” and see in the
programme of the Progressive Party a solution to their problems. As home debts
are connected with inflation, and inflation is very high, sorting this out is
now a priority for Icelanders. By making good use of the citizens’
disappointment with the government, Pétursdóttir affirms, “they’re making
populist promises that are impossible to keep.” “That’s why they’re doing so
well,” she concludes.

Regardless of the majority
Althingi will have next week, parties such as Píratar and Dögun are ready to
fight to see the draft constitution approved. “If we don’t manage to replace
the whole constitution, we’ll work to implement at least the clauses that went
before the referendum – and that people clearly wanted,” states Gunnarsson. “To
do so, however, we need to deal with every single point individually and that’s
going to be a long process,” he concludes.

To become law, the new
constitution – or the amendments to the old one – has to be put through a
parliamentary vote. Once it has been approved by two thirds of the 63 MPs, new
elections are to be called and the newly-elected Althingi has to ratify it again
with at least two thirds of votes.

The council has submitted
a proposal, and the nation has expressed itself through a referendum. It is now
up to the Icelandic parliament to take this process seriously. It will
certainly take years, but now that citizens know what they themselves are able
to do, they will not be content to just stand by and watch.

About the author

Giulia Dessi has recently completed a Master degree in International Journalism at Cardiff University, UK. Her master dissertation focused on the role of citizens in the decision-making process following the Icelandic banking system collapse and in the accomplishment of democratic improvements.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Recent comments

openDemocracy is an independent, non-profit global media outlet, covering world affairs, ideas and culture, which seeks to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world. We publish high-quality investigative reporting and analysis; we train and mentor journalists and wider civil society; we publish in Russian, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese and English.